Tiger Moth Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 After official US investigative reports to Congress that state there were no weapons of mass destruction in IRAQ and that there were no ties terrorist ties to IRAQ - i.e., no basis for the US invasion of IRAQ (Oh, excuse me, the coalition invasion of IRAQ - about 90% US, 8% UK - some coalition) George W. Bush uses the anniversary of 9/11 attach on the World Trade Center to say that IRAQ was an imminent threat to the US. Am I missing something? What was the threat? And now in the news today form Tony Blair: British Prime Minister Tony Blair launched a withering attack on Thursday on what he called "mad anti-Americanism" among European politicians. Blair, U.S. President George W. Bush's closest ally in the so-called war on terror, said the world urgently needs the United States to help tackle the globe's most pressing problems. "The danger is if they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage. We need them involved," Blair said, spelling out his political vision in a pamphlet published by The Foreign Policy Center think-tank. "The strain of, frankly, anti-American feeling in parts of European politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in," he said. So, my question is, who is worse? Bush or Blair? By the way, I am an American. I am at a loss to answer this question. On the one hand, Bush, who claims that he is guided by the hand of "God" initiated this mess but, Blair's support was essential to "legitimatize" the action and the claims of a "coalition". So, who do you think is worse Bush or Blair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 Blair. Bush doesn't know any better. Blair does. Of course they both thought grabbing Iraq would be a cakewalk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 I'll say Bush, while he is the dumber of the 2, it is always worse when it is one of your own. Frankly, I am embarrassed by him, and wish he would be arrested for war crimes, Cheny as well...if you want Blair, then o.k. also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidel Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 They're both cunts. Which one of them is more stupid is another question. When Blair says this shit, his audience generally doesn't buy it at all.. he's looking very uncomfortable lately. He doesn't even seem convinced of it himself. When Bush spews his propaganda.. Americans, many of them at least, swallow it hook line and sinker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 Yeah, that is the really shameful part of it. Americans have a knack for getting fucked in the ass by the leaders, yet saying "...no, my party would never do that...it is the other party..." Both parties play this crap, but I think the republicans/Neocons are a bit worse. Odd how a lot of those clowns will vote for a conservastive leader based on some stupid concept, despite it being against all their own best interests. Bewildering really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckwoww Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 Probably going to take this thread OT but I think after 911 a lot of Americans went along with Bush just because they wanted to kick some ass. The build-up to invading Iraq was cleverly done. Congress gave Bush the green light and Saddam was put in the position of having to prove a negative. Blair is harder to figure. Something to do with BP and a sort of neo-colonial messianic vision I think. He just ignored anybody who disagreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 911 gave GWB the excuse he needed to go and do his evil bidding. Fact is, almost all of what he said related to 911/Iraq/Iran/Afganistan etc was all a lie. Of course then the argument/debate becomes who is worse the one leading (Bush) or the one following (Blair)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AF16 Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 Blair tries to salvage his reputation with a glairing fallacy. 1. We need the US involvment .... which I agree with then he follow with 2. so everyting the US involve it self in is good .... which I do not agree with. What the US does in the ME is simply wrong, and we need the US to get back into the real world and work for a sollution the right way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AF16 Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 ... to the question, without Bush no lapdog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bust Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 I've posted about this before and the people are to blame here. You can only hold the politicians responsible to a certain point. Most Americans British and here Australians as well stood by and let this happen. One person's protest will never make a difference, but a billion individuals protesting together will. The people re-elected these guys for a second term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.